Federal Circuit patent decisions
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB finding of obviousness, holding that prior art disclosing ambitious performance parameters for a gas turbine engine cannot render claims obvious when the prior art relies on non-existent materials that a skilled artisan could not have made.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Stanford’s patent claims directed to a computational method for haplotype phasing — determining which genetic variants are inherited together on each chromosome — were patent ineligible as abstract mathematical calculations implemented on generic computer hardware.
The Federal Circuit held that the § 314(d) bar on appealing institution decisions does not extend to post-institution estoppel rulings under § 315(e)(1), giving patent owners a path to challenge PTAB estoppel determinations that arise after an IPR is already underway.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement, reaffirming that apparatus claims must be construed according to what the device physically is rather than how it functions, and remanding genuine disputes about literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents for jury resolution.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a $155 million reasonable royalty award against Baxalta for infringing Bayer’s blood-clotting factor patent but reversed the willfulness finding, holding that mere knowledge of a patent and its infringement is not enough — willfulness requires wanton, malicious, or bad-faith conduct.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Amgen’s patents claiming a broad functional genus of anti-PCSK9 antibodies were invalid for lack of enablement, because the specification failed to teach skilled artisans how to make the full range of claimed antibodies without undue experimentation.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Amgen’s antibody patents directed to an entire genus of antibodies binding to a specific PCSK9 epitope lacked adequate enablement — holding that claiming a broad functional genus of antibodies without enabling the full scope of the claim requires undue experimentation and is invalid under § 112(a).
The Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent claiming a computerized system for redeeming credit card loyalty points for rewards is an abstract idea ineligible for patent protection, and also held that substitute claims proposed in covered business method review are subject to § 101 scrutiny.
The Federal Circuit held that technical documents submitted to video coding standards bodies and distributed at widely attended conferences qualify as prior art “printed publications” based on public accessibility, even without formal library indexing.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent owner’s disclaimer of its right to pursue infringement damages in a parallel district court proceeding could moot a challenger’s appeal of an adverse IPR final written decision, giving patent owners a powerful procedural tool.
The Federal Circuit held that Google forfeited its claim construction arguments by failing to raise them before the examiner or the PTAB, clarifying the important procedural distinction between waiver and forfeiture in patent appeals.
The Federal Circuit granted Apple’s mandamus petition, holding that district courts must resolve venue transfer motions before proceeding on the merits, and issued a writ ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer the case to Northern California.
The Federal Circuit held that venue in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases is proper only where the defendant’s ANDA submission occurred, not in any district where the generic drug might eventually be sold, resolving a split among district courts.
The Federal Circuit upheld TecSec’s multi-level document security patents as patent eligible under § 101 and reversed the district court’s exclusion of inducement evidence, finding that the claimed data-encryption system represented a specific technical improvement rather than an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s invalidity ruling on Immunex’s IL-4 receptor antibody patent, upholding a broad claim construction of ‘human antibodies’ that encompassed humanized antibodies and finding the claims obvious over prior art.
A divided Federal Circuit panel held that American Axle’s patent on a method for tuning a propshaft to reduce vibration was patent-ineligible as directed to the application of Hooke’s Law — drawing sharp dissents and a petition for rehearing that generated significant debate about the scope of § 101’s natural law exception for mechanical patents.
The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment for Biogen and reinstated a jury verdict of invalidity, holding that a recombinant polypeptide cannot be distinguished from its native counterpart for novelty purposes when the molecules are structurally identical — a product-by-process analysis applies even within method of treatment claims.
The Federal Circuit held that the inter partes review statute does not permit a petitioner to join itself to its own existing IPR proceeding or to add new issues through joinder, closing a widely-used PTAB practice that had allowed parties to work around the one-year filing deadline.
The Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of noninfringement in a dispute over Genentech’s Hemlibra hemophilia drug, holding the district court’s narrow construction of ‘antibody’ was inconsistent with the patent’s written description, which disclosed bispecific, chimeric, and humanized antibodies.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful patent infringement and the jury’s $23 million damages award in a droplet microfluidics case, but reversed claim construction on two of three patents and partially vacated the injunction as to product lines where 10X had not yet developed non-infringing alternatives.
The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus directing transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California — the first such order against Judge Albright’s court — holding that the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing transfer factors.
The Federal Circuit held that a state university’s sovereign immunity barred its involuntary joinder as a co-plaintiff, but permitted an exclusive patent licensee to proceed with infringement litigation without the patent owner, because the licensee had identical interests and no risk of multiple suits.
The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may evaluate patent eligibility under § 101 when a patent owner proposes substitute claims during an inter partes review, expanding the PTAB’s authority beyond anticipation and obviousness.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidation of EMC’s data storage system patents on obviousness grounds — holding that the PTAB properly weighed secondary considerations of non-obviousness including commercial success and industry praise, but found them insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness established by the prior art.
The Federal Circuit upheld the patent eligibility of network traffic monitoring patents under § 101, finding they recite a concrete technical solution to the problem of tracking multi-flow network conversations, but reversed pre-suit damages because the patent owner failed to comply with the patent marking requirement.
The Federal Circuit held that Roche’s patents on etanercept (Enbrel) were not subject to obviousness-type double patenting by Immunex, because Roche’s license to Immunex was not an effective assignment — Roche retained substantial patent rights that prevented common ownership.
The Federal Circuit held that direct competitors have Article III standing to appeal an IPR final written decision even without a specific threat of patent infringement litigation, so long as their commercial activities risk infringement and the patent owner has refused to grant a covenant not to sue.
The Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine barred PersonalWeb from re-suing Amazon’s customers for infringement of the same patents, after PersonalWeb had previously settled a lawsuit against Amazon itself without expressly reserving its rights to sue downstream customers.
The Federal Circuit addressed whether a standard-essential patent holder’s injunction request against a licensee who rejected a FRAND license offer was properly denied — examining the standards for determining whether a license offer was FRAND-compliant and whether refusal to accept a FRAND offer could support injunctive relief.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal and held that patent claims covering a technique for reducing transmission delays in wireless communication systems were directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality rather than an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance is not binding on the courts, and that the proper legal standard for patent eligibility remains the Alice/Mayo framework as interpreted by federal court precedent.
The Federal Circuit held that assignor estoppel bars a patent assignor from challenging claim validity in district court, but does not prevent the same assignor from filing inter partes review petitions at the PTAB — a critical distinction with major implications for post-grant strategy.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act covers only the active ingredient actually approved by the FDA—and its salts and esters—but does not extend to a metabolite of that ingredient, even if the metabolite is what is pharmacologically active in the body.
The Federal Circuit held that color marks on product packaging can be inherently distinctive and thus registrable as trademarks without proof of acquired distinctiveness, clarifying that multicolor product packaging marks are treated differently from product design marks.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court preliminary injunction that barred a patent holder from alleging infringement, holding that a finding of bad faith—including objective baselessness—is a necessary predicate before such an injunction may issue.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling and held that method-of-preparation claims for enriching cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood were patent eligible under § 101, because the claims went beyond merely observing a natural phenomenon and recited concrete preparation steps.
The Federal Circuit applied the Kessler doctrine — a nineteenth-century rule of preclusion in patent law — to bar PersonalWeb from relitigating patent infringement claims against Amazon Web Services customers after PersonalWeb had previously lost in a suit against Amazon directly, holding that customers of an adjudicated non-infringer are protected from subsequent patent suits on the same technology.
The Federal Circuit granted Google’s writ of mandamus and held that cache servers leased inside third-party ISP facilities do not create a “regular and established place of business” for patent venue purposes unless an employee or agent of the defendant is conducting business there.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot cancel patent claims as indefinite in inter partes review proceedings, since the IPR statute limits the Board to invalidity grounds based on prior art under Sections 102 and 103.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board exceeded its authority by instituting inter partes review on an obviousness ground that was not raised in the petition, violating the statutory requirement that the Board limit its review to grounds asserted by the petitioner.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling, holding that a patentee cannot presume a nexus between commercial success and a patent when the successful product contains significant features not covered by the patent claims.
The Federal Circuit vacated a bench-determined FRAND royalty award, holding that a standard-essential patent holder is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on “release payments” for an implementer’s past unlicensed use of the patented technology.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Idenix’s broad nucleoside compound patent for lack of enablement and written description, ruling that a claim covering a vast genus of chemical compounds is invalid when the specification does not teach how to make most of them.
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to manufacturing driveshaft liners that “attenuate” vibrations were invalid under § 101 because they were simply an instruction to apply Hooke’s law — a natural law — without specifying how to do so, triggering a sharp dissent warning of § 101 overreach.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $145 million patent damages award against Apple, holding that Wi-LAN’s expert improperly used entire smartphone sales as the royalty base for cellular standard-essential patents — applying the entire market value rule without adequate apportionment to the patented features — and requiring retrial on damages.
The Federal Circuit invalidated garage door opener patents covering a wireless sensor system for communicating door state, holding the claims were directed to the abstract idea of wirelessly communicating status information — an idea that cannot be its own inventive concept.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patents covering the Contrave weight loss drug were obvious, rejecting arguments that unexpected synergistic effects between bupropion and naltrexone saved the claims from invalidity.
The Federal Circuit clarified the scope of IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2), holding that IPR estoppel applies only to grounds based on patents or printed publications — the types of prior art available in IPR — and does not bar district court invalidity challenges based on prior art that could not have been raised in IPR, such as prior public use or on-sale evidence.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court and invalidated Solutran’s check-processing patent under § 101, holding that the presence of physical steps involving paper checks does not transform an abstract business method into patent-eligible subject matter.
The Federal Circuit held that applying inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to patents issued before the America Invents Act does not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, rejecting a major constitutional challenge to the PTAB system.